Einstein thought that Bohr's interpretation of light interference was "crazy" and that there was most likely an alternative unknown principle involved. But, with the Bohr interpretation the only ball in the game everyone picked it up and ran with it. Sense I have put my experiments challenging that interpretation on the internet many recent alternatives have been brought to my attention.

One of these is a paper by Riadh H. Al Rabeh of the University of Basra, Iraq, titled " A Numerical Experiment with the Double Slit Geometry ". It can be found with a google search.

Partial abstract: " In this work we performed a numerical experiment in which a single charged particle is fired at wall of (fixed) charged particles containing gaps to mimic slits, and collect the results over many events in time. Assuming only a classical inverse square relation to hold between the particles - including those of the wall, the results show clear diffraction and interference patterns indicating that the wave behavior of the bullet particles arises simply from such interactions - "

I couldn't help but notice that this interpretation is commensurate with the results of my experiments as well as those of historic experiments previously considered as anomalous. With a new mathematical model that follows classical laws having been presented; has the more complicated portions of quantum theory, which, in my opinion, do not meet all experimental results, become cumbersome, obsolete, and unnecessary?

I have read the paper and its well put together and written apart from the section that actually describes the process used to calculate the deflection. I worry that the simplification and approximation used might have introduced the wave like properties rather than them being inherent. I am a bit hungover today (see champagne thread) so cannot concentrate enough to work this out.

The Naked Scientists® and Naked Science® are registered trademarks.
Information presented on this website is the opinion of the individual contributors
and does not reflect the general views of the administrators, editors, moderators,
sponsors, Cambridge University or the public at large.